Give War A Chance, The Next Generation

Hah, hah, hah.

You took an hour to come up with that?

I have said this repeatedly, that bringing up Clinton is an obvious attempt on your part to distract from the lack of evidence to support the claims Bush made.

It's an obvious attempt to show that this is a long-believed notion of American intelligence and it was not cooked up by Bush last year.

In other words, this is an obvious attempt to show the truth-- that Clinton and Bush both believed that Saddam had these weapons.

Neither man was "lying." At most, they both may have been *wrong*, but that's different than "lying."

You are the asshole attempting to square the impossibly round circle, claiming that Clinton told the truth when he said Saddam had WMD but that Bush lied-- not just that he was wrong, mind you, which would be odd enough, but that he lied.

By the way, Ponytail: Both men were correct.

In all the world, it is only leftists who believe Saddam Hussien.

Tom,

See, Clinton was just relying on The UN.

See, they're the bad guys in all this!!!

The Madmen-- they misled poor Bill Clinton. (Lucky for him, they misled him just when he needed it most, that is, during the Impeachment Trial.)

Who said it???

The world will more and more have to address the kind of theat that Iraq poses NOW [emphasis added]: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists . . . who travel the world among us unnoticed.

Bush cited the UN too, Ponytail.

And this is ludicrous. Are you claiming that Clinton ONLY cited the UN? In all of his fucking Presidency?

This is the Parser's Game: They look for any childish nitpick in the information presented to them (and note it is always their opponents presenting information; the Parsers just sit back and quibble about words within the evidence others accumulate) and make up new objections as they go, each more silly than the last.

This is exactly what you did with your "Clinton never said Saddam had WMD" bullshit: You make these claims that you KNOW are not true, but are not disprovable AT THE MOMENT, simply because no one has yet run a google on "CIA Clinton Iraq WMD" or whatever.

You were wrong at least once today; do you really want to make this claim?

I can disprove it in ten minutes. Are you willing to gamble whatever tiny shred of credibility you have left in claiming that, according to YOU, Clinton never once cited any US intelligence in making his case for military action againg Iraq?

" Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons."

-- Clinton, Pentagon Speech, February 1998

It's not even clear to me what POSSIBLE difference it could POSSIBLY make if we admit this newest distinction-without-a-difference, the "Oh, Clinton only cited the UN" gamble.

What the fuck does it MATTER, asshole?

Prove to ME for once (how about that: You prove something to ME) that this should make any sort of difference whatsoever, even if true (which, by the way, it's not. Duh.)

And if Clinton relied on the UN, also note that he relied on his Joint Chiefs of Staff as well, stating that they had "unanimously" agreed that the strike was necessary, and necessary at that moment ("now," the President said).

So he cite the Joint Chiefs, too.

He was citing other people for a reason: Because he had no credibility of his own. The entire nation suspected, correctly, that it was not necessary to bomb Saddam that WEEK and that he was wagging the dog; thus, the fulsome claims about the Joint Chiefs and CIA insisting that he attack Saddam immediately.

"But let me get this straight here. There seems to be a definite shift in arguments. "

Yes, it has seemed that way to me, too. Everytime you open your mouth, it's a new claim. From "Clinton never said Saddam had WMD" to "Clinton never said that Saddam had WMD right *NOW,* at this very moment" to "Clinton did say Saddam had WMD at this very moment, but he was relying on those Brigands and Dastards at the UN so he gets a mulligan on it."

By the way, when I would treat Ponytail badly, the rest of you stupid fucks -- and I'm looking at you, Tom -- would be all, "Gee, why are you picking on poor Rask? He's a fair debater, isn't he?"

Uh, no, he isn't, and never has been. He's an arrogant little deceitful Ponytail Half-a-Fag, and always has been.

Ponytail:

Three words:

Sudanese aspirin factory.

Did Clinton Lie? Or was he simply wrong?

Was that the dishonest UN giving him false information there, too?

simply asked for evidence, and watched you squirm as it took you a full day to come up with something valid.

So, let me see: I was right; you were wrong; you denied the obvious as a cheap rhetorical rear guard action; I proved the obvious; and I, of course, am the one who "squirms" in this retelling.

Gee, you were ignorant, I wasn't, I dispelled your ignorance for you, doing actual research and doing you an actual service, and gee, I'm the "squirmy" one.

You know, the one who was right from the get-go, and the one who proved that with facts 'n stuff.

I never said that either. You posted a claim where Clinton said Iraq would have weapons in the future as evidence that Clinton thought Iraq had weapons now. I pointed out that this didn't hold water based on the plain text you had quoted.

Cf:

Note the future tense. The lack of present tense should be a dead giveaway even to someone as stubborn as yourself that Clinton is *not* saying Iraq had WMDs at the time of the speech.

Note that the quote in which Clinton says Iraq has WMD *now* is included in the same speech where Ponytail instructs me to "note the future tense," and further informs me that it should be a "dead giveaway" that "Clinton is *not* saying Iraq had WMDs at the time of the speech.

Jimmy

I'm starting to note that pattern. I'm also starting to note the patented angry sputtering of leftists as each claim is disproved in short order, and they begin accusing us of being "dense" for not "understanding" the scary-complicated points they're making.

But see Ace, he's not taking a position apparently. He's just helping you sharpen your skills. That's all.

Yes, this is what annoys me about the lefties-- they think that their job in every argument is to act as the Judge, merely accepting offers of evidence from various advocates wishing to persuade them. They never feel the responsibility to present evidence themselves; they just sit there saying, "I'm not convinced. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Why don't you buttle off and dig something up for me on that?"

The fuckign arrogance of these Ponytail Homos.

Cal,

As I've said before, MsIt and you have political reasons to be down on the economy, and you always will, so please, bugger off already.

A poll of 30 major corp CFOs say, by a strong majority, that the economy is going to improve dramatically.

I trust them more than ex-economist MsIt. Sorry, that's just the way I feel.